‘Six Californias’ initiative fails to qualify for ballot

Share this:

Venture capitalist Tim Draper speaks during his press conference to roll out the signature-gathering campaign for his proposed ballot measure to split California into six states, in San Mateo on Feb. 24, 2014. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group)

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper has missed a key step in his audacious plan to break up California into six states: He failed to gather enough signatures to qualify his initiative for the November 2016 ballot, the Secretary of State’s Office reported Friday.

The slipup seemed like the punch line to what had mushroomed into a national joke, with TV talking heads and late-night comedians taking potshots at the Golden State’s latest political weirdness.

Political experts expressed amazement Friday that Draper’s $5.2 million personal investment in the proposed ballot measure didn’t do the trick.

“That should’ve been more than enough money to qualify,” said Graeme Boushey, a UC Irvine political-science professor. “It shouldn’t have been particularly onerous for them, given the money and the professional petition circulators.”

Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political expert, said that the effort’s failure doesn’t say anything about the merits of the proposal. Instead, he said, “I think it says everything about a lack of organizational savvy by its proponents.”

The Secretary of State’s Office reported that county registrars did a random check of about 54,000 of the more than 1.1 million petition signatures that Draper’s campaign collected. Based on that sampling, officials estimated that only 752,685 signatures would be valid — far less than the 807,615 needed to qualify.

Draper blasted the ruling Friday, saying in a statement that his paid signature gatherers collected more than enough to qualify the measure, and “we are confident that a full check of the signatures would confirm that fact.” He said his team will review signatures determined to be invalid by several counties’ registrars to see whether they’re actually valid because his contractor — Carlsbad-based Arno Political Consultants — had predicted a much higher validity rate.

“It is yet another example of the dysfunction of the current system and reinforces the need for six fresh, modern governments,” he said.

He didn’t say whether he was considering a lawsuit that would challenge the secretary of state’s ruling or the election code section that sets the random-sampling process for ballot measures.

As things stand now, unless Draper can persuade the secretary of state to revisit the issue, he would have to start from square one with a new attempt to put the measure on the ballot. He didn’t indicate Friday whether he’d be willing to do that.

In July, several voters from different parts of California told this newspaper that paid signature gatherers for Draper’s measure had lied to them, claiming the measure did the exact opposite of what it really does. Michael Arno, owner of the political consulting firm, downplayed the reports at the time and contended that past allegations of skulduggery by his firm in other campaigns had been trumped up by political foes.

Under Draper’s plan, much of the Bay Area, plus Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, would become the state of Silicon Valley. California’s northernmost parts would become Jefferson, as some counties up there have wanted for years. Some North Bay counties would become part of North California; Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield would be among Central California’s largest cities. Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara would wind up in West California. And San Diego would anchor South California.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said the breakup of California — now 14th among the 50 states in per-capita income — would create both the nation’s richest state (Silicon Valley) and its poorest (Central California).

Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who just last week was named chairman of the “One California” committee created to oppose Draper’s measure, issued a statement Friday saying the measure had been “a solution in search of a problem that didn’t address any of our state’s challenges.”

But some political experts almost seemed disappointed.

Though it wouldn’t likely have passed, Kousser said, “it would’ve been a fun thing to kick around for a couple of years.”

“It could’ve been an important social debate because it gave voice to a sense of alienation in California,” he said. “This wasn’t a cure that Californians were going to swallow, but it would’ve been good for the state to have a conversation about the illness.”